Ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic coronary syndromes

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00654

Anoop Koshy
Anoop N. Koshy1,2, MBBS, PhD; Gennaro Giustino1, MD; Samantha Sartori, PhD; Amit Hooda1, MD; Yihan Feng, MS; Clayton Snyder1, MPH; Shabitri Dasgupta1, MS; Kartik R. Kumar1, MD; Parasuram Krishnamoorthy-Melarcode1, MD; Joseph Sweeny1, MD; Sahil Khera1, MD, MPH; Gregory W. Serrao1, MD; Raman Sharma1, MD; George Dangas1, MD, PhD; Annapoorna S. Kini1, MD; Roxana Mehran1,3, MD; Samin K. Sharma1, MD
1. The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 2. Department of Cardiology, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; 3. Center for Interventional Cardiovascular Research and Clinical Trials, The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

Background: Potent P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit extends to a patient population with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear.

Aims: We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for CCS.

Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI for CCS at a tertiary centre between 2014 and 2019 who were discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared with those on clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularisation at 1 year.

Results: Overall, 11,508 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor/prasugrel n=2,860 [24.9%], clopidogrel n=8,648 [75.1%]) with an increasing frequency of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use over the study period (ptrend<0.001). Clopidogrel was used more frequently in patients with multimorbid risk factors, whereas anatomical or procedural complexity was associated with ticagrelor/prasugrel use (left main PCI, bifurcation PCI, number of lesions, rotational atherectomy). No difference in the incidence of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel: 2.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.17; p=0.33) or secondary outcomes including bleeding (adjHR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.21; p=0.23) on propensity score stratification analysis. Additionally, no difference in the primary outcome was observed across subgroups, including those undergoing complex PCI.

Conclusions: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly used in patients with CCS undergoing PCI with similar 1-year efficacy and safety when compared to clopidogrel. Whether use of these agents can be beneficial in patients undergoing PCI for CCS with a high thrombotic and low bleeding risk warrants further study.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

adjunctive pharmacotherapycalcified stenosisdrug-eluting stentin-stent restenosismultiple vessel diseasestable angina
Read next article
Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the randomised FAVOR III Europe Japan trial

Latest news